Daily Comment on News and Issues of Interest to Michigan Lawyers

03/27/2012

Acquittals in Hutaree Militia Case

Judge Victoria Roberts has granted a defense motion to acquit the Hutaree militia members on seven charges, including seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. Trial will continue against Hutaree leader David Stone Sr. and his son on weapons-related charge. From the opinion (PDF):

[W]hile the Government presented evidence of vile and often hateful speech, and may have even shown that certain Defendants conspired to commit some crime — perhaps to murder local law enforcement — offensive speech and a conspiracy to do something other than forcibly resist a positive show of authority by the Federal Government is not enough to sustain a charge of seditious conspiracy. A conspiracy to murder law enforcement is a far cry from a conspiracy to forcibly oppose the authority of the Government of the United States.

As explained more fully in Subsection 3 below, the evidence is not sufficient for a rational factfinder to find that Defendants came to a concrete agreement to forcibly oppose the authority of the Government of the United States as charged in the Indictment; that would be an agreement to retreat to rally points after drawing federal law enforcement from across the country to Michigan to engage in a large-scale uprising or “war” with these agents.

Eugene Volokh notes that that the Double Jeopardy Clause has been read as precluding the government from appealing grants of a motion for judgment of acquittal

Comments

Acquittals in Hutaree Militia Case

Judge Victoria Roberts has granted a defense motion to acquit the Hutaree militia members on seven charges, including seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. Trial will continue against Hutaree leader David Stone Sr. and his son on weapons-related charge. From the opinion (PDF):

[W]hile the Government presented evidence of vile and often hateful speech, and may have even shown that certain Defendants conspired to commit some crime — perhaps to murder local law enforcement — offensive speech and a conspiracy to do something other than forcibly resist a positive show of authority by the Federal Government is not enough to sustain a charge of seditious conspiracy. A conspiracy to murder law enforcement is a far cry from a conspiracy to forcibly oppose the authority of the Government of the United States.

As explained more fully in Subsection 3 below, the evidence is not sufficient for a rational factfinder to find that Defendants came to a concrete agreement to forcibly oppose the authority of the Government of the United States as charged in the Indictment; that would be an agreement to retreat to rally points after drawing federal law enforcement from across the country to Michigan to engage in a large-scale uprising or “war” with these agents.

Eugene Volokh notes that that the Double Jeopardy Clause has been read as precluding the government from appealing grants of a motion for judgment of acquittal